The folks at RichardDawkins.net have their panties in a bunch over some of my class assignments (go here):
Thanks to Baron Scarpia for alerting us to this website, which outlines the rigorous academic standards [Quote-miners, please note: this is sarcasm] which William Dembski’s students have to achieve in his courses on Intelligent Design and Christian Apologetics at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary:
http://www.designinference.com/teaching/teaching.htm
If you follow the links, you will see that it is full of gems: we won’t spoil them for you by flagging them all up, but – just to whet your appetite – you will notice that, at both undergrad and masters level, there are courses for which 20% of the final marks come from having made 10 posts defending ID on ‘hostile’ websites! This could explain a lot.
You may be less amused at some of the questions in the final exam of the Christian Faith and Science module: http://www.designinference.com/teaching/2008_fall_sci-faith_mdiv/final_exam_10dec08.pdf. In particular, this one:
Trace the connections between Darwinian evolution, eugenics, abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia. Why are materialists so ready to embrace these as a package deal? What view of humanity and reality is required to resist them?
And this one:
You are the Templeton Foundation’s new program director and are charged with overseeing its programs and directing its funds. Sketch out a 20-year plan for defeating scientific materialism and the evolutionary worldview it has fostered if you had $50,000,000 per year in current value to do so. What sorts of programs would you institute? How would you spend the money?
It seems that sending my students to post on “hostile” websites, however, sticks especially in their craw. Slashdot has since picked up on it (go here — the keyword tags are precious).
Want to know how Darwinists really think? Go to the websites listed here and find out. Thus, when I require students to go to these websites and defend ID, it is sound pedagogy. Darwinists reflexively call this trolling (a projection of their own propensity to troll). One individual even emailed me that this is “requiring your students to participate in the intellectual equivalent of spray painting graffiti.” Nonsense. These sites provide a forum and, ostensibly, encourage discussion. My students go to these sites not to pretend to be something they are not but to defend their views — with civility.
In any case, I’ll make you a deal: let Darwinist, atheist, skeptic, freethinking, and infidel websites state prominently on their homepage the following warning — “Intelligent Design Supporters Strictly Prohibited” — and I’ll make sure my students don’t post on your sites.